Big Soda's Publicity Stunt

[Guest guest]

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/24647/

 

Big Soda's Publicity Stunt

 

By Michele Simon, AlterNet. Posted August 29, 2005.

 

The trade group responsible for pushing sugary drinks to children of

all ages has just trumpeted another set of useless new guidelines.

 

Move over Big Tobacco, you've got competition in the Shameless PR

award category: With much fanfare, the American Beverage Association

(the trade group formerly known as the National Soft Drink

Association) has announced a new school-based policy " aimed at

providing lower calorie and/or nutritious beverages to schools and

limiting the availability of soft drinks. "

 

The specifics of the policy matter less than the enormous amount of

positive press that resulted. Newspaper accounts included such

headlines as " Soft drink industry takes high road " and " Schools get

ally in soda issue: Drink makers. "

 

Unfortunately, the real impact of this move is far different. To begin

with, the ABA is the soda makers' lobbying arm and doesn't directly

contract with schools. Soda is sold through local distributors

controlled by the parent companies. Next, there is no enforcement or

oversight mechanism for the voluntary rules. Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola

boasted that the new policy mirrored their own, and that should raise

plenty of red flags. Coca-Cola's 2003 voluntary " model guidelines " to

not sell sodas in elementary schools are already routinely violated.

Documented examples include schools in Kentucky and Texas.

 

In addition, the policy only applies to vending machines, ignoring

other ways that soda is sold in schools, such as in stores, from soda

fountains, and at sporting events. And conveniently enough for

industry, many schools are locked into lengthy contracts, sometimes

for as long as thirteen years. The rules would only apply to new

contracts. If ABA members really cared about children's health, why

not call for renegotiation of all school contracts right now?

 

What Nutrition Standards?

 

Even if the policy could actually be implemented, from a nutrition

standpoint, the guidelines are a joke. Many schools have much stronger

policies already in place. The ABA policy says no soda in elementary

schools; why do they only care about young children's health? Also,

because sports and juice drinks are also high in sugar and calories,

nutritionists advise against them. Yet, the ABA says they're ok for

middle and high schools.

 

Numerous school districts around the nation, including in Los Angeles,

San Francisco, Boston, Seattle and Chicago, have banned all soda and

other highly sweetened beverages in all grades. Philadelphia's school

beverage policy is simple: water, 100% juice, and milk, K-12, period.

Why doesn't ABA's simply policy call for only healthy beverages in all

schools? As New York attorney Ross Getman told Bloomberg News, " The

announcement represents a calculation that they can just as easily

hook a kid on caffeinated soda in four years instead of six. " In other

words, it's all about brand loyalty, and high schools kids make

decisions that last a lifetime.

 

Deflecting State Legislation

 

That the ABA made their big announcement at the annual meeting of the

National Conference of State Legislatures was both calculated and

ironic, since the group's members have been lobbying against state

bills to improve school nutrition for years. In recent months, bills

have been either killed or significantly gutted, thanks to heavy

lobbying from Coca-Cola and friends, in such states as Connecticut,

Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon. While the ABA said their policy would

not supercede any existing policies (how nice, since their policy

couldn't supercede a state law), no pledges have been made by the ABA

or its members to halt their lobbying activities.

 

The ABA got quotes for its press release from three politicians: North

Carolina Lt. Governor Beverly Perdue, California Assemblywoman Gloria

Negrete McLeod, and Georgia Senator Renee Unterman. North Carolina

passed a bill last month that closely mirrors the new ABA policy, so

there would be no impact in that state anyway. In California, a

stronger law is already on the books and another bill (backed by

Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) to get sodas out of high

schools, is pending. So the policy is moot there as well. And with

Coca-Cola headquarters based in Georgia, lawmakers in that state are

loath to pass any school vending bill.

 

ABA's real purpose is to ward off future efforts to enact stronger

laws. Every time the local news covers another attempt by a state

legislature to pass a bill to limit soda in school, this creates a

public relations problem. But if industry is perceived as " being part

of the solution " (as the ABA press release professes) then lawmakers

just might take the issue off the table.

 

Money Can Buy Love

 

There is no better evidence of this announcement being a publicity

stunt than the ABA's multi-million dollar plan " to run print and

broadcast advertising to educate the public about the new policy. " If

the motivation is truly children's health, why does the ABA need to

advertise? Why not spend that money ensuring that local bottlers make

the changes instead? What possible purpose could an ad campaign serve,

other than to promote soda companies as caring, responsible corporate

citizens?

 

If this sounds eerily familiar, it should. The ABA is taking a page

right out of the tobacco industry's playbook: Spend more money

marketing a new responsible image than it costs actually being

responsible.

 

Michele Simon, a public-health attorney who teaches health policy at

the UC Hastings College of the Law, is director of the Center for

Informed Food Choices, a nonprofit in Oakland, Calif.